ORDER : 1. The petitioner-Kalicharan Mandal and 142 others are aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Gauhati High Court, whereby permission has been granted to the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited to start the Solar Plant Project but subject to certain pre-emptory directions. 2. We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 3. It can hardly be disputed that the petitioners are encroachers on the Government land. Pursuant to the sanction accorded by the Central Government, the State Power Corporation, namely, respondent No.5, has decided to set up a solar power plant for which Government land measuring 220 acres has been identified. A part of this land is under occupation of the petitioners unauthorisedly. Apprehending that they are likely to be dispossessed, as a consequence to the decision to establish the solar plant, some of the petitioners approached the High Court by way of W.P.(C) No. 8309/2022 in which they were granted ad-interim protection on 02.03.2023. That petition came to be finally disposed of by the High Court on 18.12.2024 wherein comprehensive directions were issued including a direction to the District Commissioner to pass appropriate orders allotting certain specific areas of land to the indigenous landless families like the petitioners for which land was earmarked in Dag No.378 of Nisalamari village, under Borsola Mouza, Sonitpur. It was further directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the adverse orders passed against them and that status quo shall be maintained till the exercise pertaining to the re-location of the families to be uprooted from the site, was completed. 4. In deference to the directions issued by the High Court, the State Authorities passed a reasoned order. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the said Government order again approached the High Court by way of W.P.(C) No. 1083/2025 in which the impugned order has been passed. As the petitioners perceived that the order under challenge does not protect their possession in terms of the directions earlier issued by the High Court on 18.12.2024, they have approached this Court. 5. We, however, find that the apprehension expressed by the petitioners is misconceived and misplaced. We say so for the reason that firstly the High Court in paragraph 12 has recorded the undertaking given on behalf of respondent No.5 Corporation as well as the State Government. 5. We, however, find that the apprehension expressed by the petitioners is misconceived and misplaced. We say so for the reason that firstly the High Court in paragraph 12 has recorded the undertaking given on behalf of respondent No.5 Corporation as well as the State Government. Paragraph 12 of the impugned order reads as follows: "12. At this stage, Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for APDCL, referring to the impugned order of the District Commissioner, contends that the District Commissioner has balanced the equity and decided to allow APDCL to start the solar project, which is very important for the State of Assam, by protecting the right of those persons who are occupying a portion of the land over 220 acres by relocating them in other lands to facilitate the start of the important project till the final decision is taken. Accordingly, Mr. Goswami, learned Addi. Advocate General submits that such an important project of national interest should be allowed to be started without disturbing the rights of the petitioners and he gives an undertaking in the court on behalf of the APDCL that the APDCL will not take recourse to eviction of any dwelling house situated, for the purpose of starting of the solar project till a firm decision is taken by the District Commissioner, in terms or the judgment and order dated 18.12.2024." 6. The High Court thereafter, as an abundant precaution and based upon the undertaking given by the State Government/Corporation, has issued positive directions in paragraph 15 of the impugned order to the effect that the petitioners shall not be evicted from their dwelling houses till they are shifted temporarily to any government khas and ceiling surplus land as per the decision taken by the District Administration. For ready reference, paragraph 15 reads as follows: "15. Accordingly, leave is granted to the APDCL to start the solar project within the 220 acres of allotted land in question, however, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall not be evicted from their dwelling houses till they are shifted temporarily to any government khas and ceiling surplus land as decided by the District Commissioner i.e. identify the families within this 220 acres of the land and to settle them in an alternative land till final decision is taken by the District Commissioner." 7. There can be no reason to doubt and we reiterate so that though respondent No.5 Corporation is at liberty to commence the establishment of the Solar Project within the 220 acres of allotted land in question, however, the petitioners shall not be evicted from their dwelling units till they are shifted temporarily to any government khas and ceiling surplus land in terms of the decision already taken by the District Administration. 8. In case there is a delay in adjudicating the petitioners' claim for allotment of permanent sites under the Assam Land Policy, 2019, they shall be at liberty to approach the High Court again for expeditious determination of their claim under that policy. 9. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of, in the above terms. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.